Questions for general practice.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Chest Pain↗
Biomedical subjects
Alistair Howitt
Publications and source records attributed to Alistair Howitt.
An evaluation of general practice websites in the UK.
BACKGROUND: General practice websites are an emerging phenomenon, but there have been few critical evaluations of their content. Previously developed rating instruments to assess medical websites have been criticized for failing to report their reliability and validity. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to develop a rating instrument for assessing UK general practice websites, and then to evaluate them critically. METHODS: The STaRNet Website Assessment Tool (SWAT) was developed listing criteria that general practice websites may meet, which was then used to evaluate a random sample of websites drawn from an electronic database. A second assessor rated a subsample of the sites to assess the tool's inter-rater reliability. The setting was an information technology group of a general practice research network using a random sample of 108 websites identified from the database. The main outcome measures were identification of rating criteria and frequency counts from the website rating instrument. RESULTS: Ninety (93.3%) sites were accessible, of which 84 were UK general practice websites. Criteria most frequently met were those describing the scope of the website and their functionality. Apart from e-mail to practices, criteria related to electronic communication were rarely met. Criteria relating to the quality of information were least often met. Inter-rater reliability kappa values for the items in the tool ranged from -0.06 to 1.0 (mean 0.59). Values were >0.6 for 15 out of 25 criteria assessed in 40 sites which were rated by two assessors. CONCLUSIONS: General practice websites offer a wide range of information. They are technically satisfactory, but do not exploit fully the potential for electronic doctor-patient communication. The quality of information they provide is poor. The instrument may be developed as a template for general practices producing or revising their own websites.
Family Practice↗
Preference-based antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: implications for clinical decision making.
BACKGROUND: Patient preferences and expert-generated clinical practice guidelines regarding treatment decisions may not be identical. The authors compared the thresholds for antithrombotic treatment from studies that determined or modeled the treatment preferences of patients with atrial fibrillation with recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: Methods included MEDLINE identification, systematic review, and pooling with some reanalysis of primary data from relevant studies. RESULTS: Eight pertinent studies, including 890 patients, were identified. These studies used 3 methods (decision analysis, probability tradeoff, and decision aids) to determine or model patient preferences. All methods highlighted that the threshold above which warfarin was preferred over aspirin was highly variable. In 6 of 8 studies, patient preferences indicated that fewer patients would take warfarin compared to the recommendations of the guidelines. In general, at a stroke rate of 1% with aspirin, half of the participants would prefer warfarin, and at a rate of 2% with aspirin, two thirds would prefer warfarin. In 3 studies, warfarin must provide at least a 0.9% to 3.0% per year absolute reduction in stroke risk for patients to be willing to take it, corresponding to a stroke rate of 2% to 6% on aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines often differ from patient preferences, with substantial heterogeneity in their individual preferences. Since patient preferences can have a substantial impact on the clinical decision-making process, acknowledgment of their importance should be incorporated into clinical practice guidelines. Practicing physicians need to balance the patient preferences with the treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines.
Aged↗